Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[unbeliever]

Yes- I call that corruption. Because it means that the health service using public are being duped: results showing harmful effects of drugs are hidden away and patients suffer ill-effects/death as a direct result of that data not being available to the decision-making doctors.

 

We all saw how the tobacco companies managed to also preserve their profits decades after the point science knew that their product was amongst the biggest killers of human beings, they were also deeply corrupt.

 

Now the same thing is happening again, and, people like you, who clearly know that research is being suppressed, are actually defending it

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 10:04 ----------

 

 

There is no conspiracy- this is a consequence of our healthcare being inextricably bound up with, and, heavily influenced by profits.

 

There's no high up group of evil people trying to dope up the population, it's a simple consequence of a large system whose decisions and end results are based on profit, rather than what's best for public health.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

 

It's not a conspiracy.

 

There are plenty of medical professionals standing up to, and, trying to expose (whistle-blow) the corruption in our health care systems- some of them have been mentioned on this thread.

 

But we can also include people like Drs Caldwell Esselstyn & McDougal, who put out lots of info via youtube, and, who have great success by weaning their patients off statins and other drugs, then treating their patients heart disease via a plant based diet.

 

They are quite vocal in condemning the current approach to both healthcare in general, and, to coronary heart disease in particular.

 

It would also include Dr. Peter Gotzsche (leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center )

 

It's just nowhere near enough to balance out the vast evidence on the other side.

[Eric Arthur]

Yes- I call that corruption. Because it means that the health service using public are being duped: results showing harmful effects of drugs are hidden away and patients suffer ill-effects/death as a direct result of that data not being available to the decision-making doctors.)

Who's saying they are doing that? Nobody with any credibility.

[onewheeldave]

Yes- I call that corruption. Because it means that the health service using public are being duped: results showing harmful effects of drugs are hidden away and patients suffer ill-effects/death as a direct result of that data not being available to the decision-making doctors.)

Who's saying they are doing that? Nobody with any credibility.

 

Sorry Eric- maybe I misunderstood your previous post?

 

I'm certain that there are locked filing cabinets in Glaxo et al at crammed full of research that they would rather not have in the public domain. Anti-vaxxers would call that suppression. I'd call it common sense, mainly because of the competition but also because there are crazy anti-vaxxers out there.

So the data (that you yourself admit exists) hidden away by the pharmas is only data that doesn't have a bearing on patient health?

 

And we can trust said pharmas to only hide data that doesn't have a bearing on patient health?

 

Thanks Eric, that really puts my mind at rest

[Eric Arthur]

Data is just data. Context is everything. If you modify a potential product or a test and get a better result why would you publish a worse result about a worse potential product?

 

Say you have a new anti-psychotic and you carry out 100 tests over 10 years, gradually improving the chemistry, application, patient profile, etc, what use is the useless data except for further learning by people who know what they are looking at. That person isn't you by the way.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[Cyclone]

I'm certain that there are locked filing cabinets in Glaxo et al at crammed full of research that they would rather not have in the public domain. Anti-vaxxers would call that suppression. I'd call it common sense, mainly because of the competition but also because there are crazy anti-vaxxers out there.

 

It doesn't mean that there is a big conspiracy to sell drugs that they know are harmful because as many of you are pointing out, you can't shut up academics even if you try. That's why Andrew Wakefield lost his licence to practice.

 

If they've got to the point of doing a human trial then I don't think there's any way they can avoid releasing the results. It's extremely highly regulated.

[Eric Arthur]

If they've got to the point of doing a human trial then I don't think there's any way they can avoid releasing the results. It's extremely highly regulated.

 

Revisit Bad Science Cyclone. I'm not especially worried in overall terms but there is apparently certainly research that isn't favourable which is, shall we say, given a low profile. There's a whole other discussion about why and what it really means though. I don't think that there is an entire scientific community knowingly suppressing swathes of science results that is killing or harming people.

[JFKvsNixon]

If they've got to the point of doing a human trial then I don't think there's any way they can avoid releasing the results. It's extremely highly regulated.

 

It is done, also the results are massaged.

 

One example of massaging that I read was for an anti-emetic drug, Ondansetron. The results comparing it to other drugs in it's clinical trials were massaged to make it look more effective. This gave it intravenously in the trials, but they compared to the rival drugs intramuscular injection results. This information was kept quiet during it's trials.

 

Of course nowadays anyone within the healthcare profession free from the pharmaceutical companies interests can carry out their own research on what is the most effective antiemetic drug, and interestingly it's still the number one choice in many situations, so it's not an issue after the drug has been established on the market.

 

It's issues like this is why there there is a call for an open register of all the information from the trials of medications, because has reached the point that the trials results have become like a sales brochure for medications rather sharing of the results.

[Cyclone]

It is done, also the results are massaged.

 

One example of massaging that I read was for an anti-emetic drug, Ondansetron. The results comparing it to other drugs in it's clinical trials were massaged to make it look more effective. This gave it intravenously in the trials, but they compared to the rival drugs intramuscular injection results. This information was kept quiet during it's trials.

 

Of course nowadays anyone within the healthcare profession free from the pharmaceutical companies interests can carry out their own research on what is the most effective antiemetic drug, and interestingly it's still the number one choice in many situations, so it's not an issue after the drug has been established on the market.

 

It's issues like this is why there there is a call for an open register of all the information from the trials of medications, because has reached the point that the trials results have become like a sales brochure for medications rather sharing of the results.

 

How did the information come out about the deliberate miscomparison?

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 13:04 ----------

 

I can find lots of results for many trials for this drug, but nothing about a miscomparison

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=ondansetron+clinical+trials+intravenous+versus+oral

[JFKvsNixon]

How did the information come out about the deliberate miscomparison?

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 13:04 ----------

 

I can find lots of results for many trials for this drug, but nothing about a miscomparison

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=ondansetron+clinical+trials+intravenous+versus+oral

 

The drug company wouldn't have deliberately misled by changing the route the drug was administered, they just omitted the route that the drugs were given in both circumstances, and left others to draw their won conclusions.

 

It's in Bad Science.

Edited March 4, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[sgtkate]

 

It's issues like this is why there there is a call for an open register of all the information from the trials of medications, because has reached the point that the trials results have become like a sales brochure for medications rather sharing of the results.

 

Absolutely agreed with that. If you commission a study then you stand by the results. All medical studies and trials must be independently verified and logged somewhere where any member of the public can download the full unedited results.